Is a knowledge economy achievable when knowledge theft is so easy?
Started by Maxine Horn
Group : Open Innovation and Crowdsourcing
Number of comments as December 2. 2010 : 185
(...)tdk December 2. 2010
Maxine and fellow Linkedin members,
please allow me to jump in without reading thoroughly all previous posts.
Maxine asked :
"Is a knowledge economy achievable when knowledge theft is so easy?"
I would feel like reading the question as
a. What is the foundation of "knowledge economy" ?
b. Is it really so easy to steal "knowledge" ?
the answer to a. is given by b : that should be "knowledge property".
(...)tdk
yes we have to keep focus and see first what there is behind the terms of the original question.
If we say "knowledge theft", it implies that knowledge does not belong to anyone and can be owned by some proprietor(s). Then these can be stolen.
If we say "knowledge economy", it means that there can be an economy of knowledge.
Now, what kind of economy can we observe in the physical world ? And what are the foundations ?
(...)tdk
Thank you for the invitation to lecture.
Unfortunately, as i am exploring like every one else this new frontier that "knowledge economy" is, i am [afraid that i might be] unable to deliver.
You might have a look at The Archilogy Institute, an "open creative knowledge community" addressing governance. The "activity/models/components" [you are asking about] are far to be completed...
www.archilogy.net and others linked pages
Please note that i was born, raised and live in France : i would believe that the understanding of "knowledge" is dependant on cultural background.
Q1 : what are the foundation(s) of an economy ?
In the physical world, there is roughly two economical models : capitalism and communism.
For capitalism, the foundation is property which can be owned by individuals (physical people or organisation : in French "personne physique" et "personne morale")
Q2 : what are immaterial properties ?
There are many segmentations, mainly promoted by academic people. (see google with "immaterial capital")
How about starting a list of our own of immaterial properties/assets/capital ?
We have said already :
- intellectual property "IP" (we might need to segment what there is behind IP)
- brand
- artistic work
-...
(...)tdk
@Maxine,
thank you for the notice of The Glasgow University announcement. That is a bold initiative indeed.
The Easy Access IP license terms are most interesting...
Which triggers the question : how can you now steal Glasgow University's IP ?
@Joris,
Communism is an economical system which has failed.
As for China, i have heard that they are taking on IP seriously. Some economists say that in 5-10 years from now on China innovation capabilities would match USA..
I add another immaterial asset : (sustainable) relationship.
That's what Glasgow University is aiming at.
(...)tdk December 3. 2010
Maxine says above : (...) knowledge is intrincically held by people, even if documented by them or their organisations (...).
We can identify here three other immaterial assets :
- "people",
- "documents capturing knowledge", whether they are printed or digitalized, and that leads us to "information systems"
- "organisations", that's process
We have now a fair list
- intellectual property "IP"
- brand
- artistic work
- relationships
- people
- information systems
- process (organisations)
now : are all these are some types of "knowledge" that can be owned, marketed and "traded" ?
(...)tdk December 4. 2010
But let's go back to the point and examine the proposition "knowledge theft is easy".
The case will be one that every one can experience immediately: plagiarize (Fr: plagier) a text under copyright (Fr : protégé par le Code de la propriété intellectuelle).
The "theft" can be easily achieved for a plagiarist who intends to represent on his website/blog the complete article of an original website/blog or more "subtly", a substantial and essential part of the article such as the title : a couple copy/paste clicks will do.
What are the risks for the plagiarist ?
(...)tdk Decembre 6 2010
When intending to reproduce some copyrighted text on a website, engaging into the process of asking permission to the author, credit the source and agree appropriate termes of use be they commercial or otherwise might not be so easy.
The first prerequisite is to show the intellectual honesty to recognize prior works and/or creation. Arrogancy might blurr intellectual capabilities.
The second prerequisite is to be inclined to respect the author's moral rights.
When courtously suggested by the author to mention the credit, some web publishers reply and argue that a link to the original site will do...
Well, they shoud ask themselves the following questions : will a reader effectively click on the link ? And what if there is a technical incident ?
That's why the practice for direct and immediate notice of the source near the quote is applied in communities where intellectual honesty and respect are shared values, such as in the academical sphere.
Finally, if the web site has some commercial purposes (such as distributing to paying suscribers the article under a specific format and associated with comments), the last step is a business decision.
If the publisher calls the author, the author might ask for some compensation which the publisher might find unreasonable versus his expected profit from the utilisation of the author's intellectual asset (in the case of the distributor site, something between a fraction of penny and more if the article is hot)
If the publisher does not call the author, what are the business risks ?
